soldiers have always been soldiers. when the police have so nearly all the leeway of martial law, you best keep your young ladies at home. where they're safe. this is the point of terrorism. we don't always outsource it.

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.

show me:One plaintiff, a 22-year-old Puyallup woman arrested on suspicion of DUI in April, said she was mortified on learning of the video and worried that it could find its way to the Internet because it is part of the public record

namatad:You dont think that it is about exposing an illegal practice and abuse of police powers?hmmmmm ok

What's illegal about videotaping people inside a jail? They even gave the tapes to the lawyer during the discovery process. They certainly weren't trying to hide anything. I would think people would expect to be videotaped while in jail.

I'm thinking this lawyer saw a way to coerce the city into making a settlement and now he's upset because they didn't pay him to go away.

Morons got caught driving drunk and were treated the same way any other criminal is treated- boo farking hoo. The only time I was ever arrested the cop made me take my shirt off on the road side so he could get pics of my tattoos in case I had 'gang affiliations' (because most gang bangers are 30 something white guys with long hair carrying acoustic guitars). It sucks, but the time to biatch about the laws is before they are passed. Everyone is pissing and moaning about the SC decision regarding strip searches but how many of you wrote letters or circulated petitions before the ruling was made? How many people even knew the decision was going to be made? Who needs secret courts when you can just anesthetize the population to the point that they don't care?Oooh... is that a Kardashian in a dancing contest? Cool. Pass me a beer and pack a bowl.

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.

Yeah, that was one of the more depressing Supreme Court decisions

I agree.

A better solution is eliminating all physical contact between prisoners. That shuts off the prison gangs' ability to control the streets too. Win-win.

I agree. But isolation for extended periods has been determined to be cruel and unusual. Though less human contact is probably less cruel then "too much" in my opinion

I say let em talk. Let em browse the internet. Let them do all sorts of things. But no physical opportunity to rape and kill eachother.

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.

Yeah, that was one of the more depressing Supreme Court decisions

I agree.

A better solution is eliminating all physical contact between prisoners. That shuts off the prison gangs' ability to control the streets too. Win-win.

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that officials may strip-search people arrested for any offense, however minor, before admitting them to jails even if the officials have no reason to suspect the presence of contraband.

Churchill2004:This strikes me as a difficult case, legally. I don't necessarily agree, but the general rule is someone who's been arrested and is being processed has no right to not be strip-searched as part of processing (or whenever else the jailers think the situation merits it), as part of the jail's effort to keep out drugs and, more importantly, any dangerous items. Observing someone changing is actually less intrusive than a full-on cavity search, and whether it's done through CCTV or peephole isn't really an issue.

So what you'd have to show is that they were specifically targeting people based on a lurid purpose and not concern for officer/prisoner safety, which as plausible as it sounds, strikes me as a difficult thing to prove.

No. To be serious a moment, the real issue is not that they were targeting for sexual gratification, but that the authorities did not recognize the right to privacy of the prisoners AND the videos of the prisoners. I can see the use of video during processing, both to protect the prisoner from false charges, and to protect the jailers from the same. BUT the videos should be licensed to the prisoners and not be released for use by anyone. The prisoner, then, would have legal recourse for the videos being out in the ether.

Churchill2004:This strikes me as a difficult case, legally. I don't necessarily agree, but the general rule is someone who's been arrested and is being processed has no right to not be strip-searched as part of processing (or whenever else the jailers think the situation merits it), as part of the jail's effort to keep out drugs and, more importantly, any dangerous items. Observing someone changing is actually less intrusive than a full-on cavity search, and whether it's done through CCTV or peephole isn't really an issue.

So what you'd have to show is that they were specifically targeting people based on a lurid purpose and not concern for officer/prisoner safety, which as plausible as it sounds, strikes me as a difficult thing to prove.

Unless you look at lots of videos and notice an absence of fatties and meth heads.

This strikes me as a difficult case, legally. I don't necessarily agree, but the general rule is someone who's been arrested and is being processed has no right to not be strip-searched as part of processing (or whenever else the jailers think the situation merits it), as part of the jail's effort to keep out drugs and, more importantly, any dangerous items. Observing someone changing is actually less intrusive than a full-on cavity search, and whether it's done through CCTV or peephole isn't really an issue.

So what you'd have to show is that they were specifically targeting people based on a lurid purpose and not concern for officer/prisoner safety, which as plausible as it sounds, strikes me as a difficult thing to prove.